I agree as well. I also have to admit that I looked at the so called scandalous pictures, and I've never seen anything look more staged. I strongly suspect that there is no affair at all and that the whole thing was put on to bring the Pattinson/Stewart showmance to a convincing end while at the same time drumming up custom for Snow White and The Huntsman 2. If this 'scandal' doesn't boost ticket sales, then I will eat any item of headgear.

Considering that the director is married, with three small children, this would make him quite something of a monster.

"Don't cry, darling, Daddy isn't REALLY going to leave Mommy for that other girl. It's just for the papers, see? And it'll make Daddy a lot of money, and he'll buy you a new pony."

Oh, I totally agree. Plus I know that my theory sounds a bit tinfoil hat: however, from looking at the pictures, the way the two of them look out for paps screams 'look at us' rather than 'gee, hope nobody can see us'. I also just can't believe that they would be so naive as to go so far in a public spot. Something just doesn't add up with the whole 'caught in the tide of passion' story that is being built up. Plus, it is said that Liberty Ross has already forgiven him, which would fit in with the whole thing being fake.

Actually, I feel a little sorry for her. She's very young, in a society (Hollywood) that preaches "if it feels good, do it!". Self-denial in the interest of long-term happiness is not a virtue taught there. So, she's learning for the first time that actions have consequences.

I agree with Twik on this part. She is learning her lessons is a very public way. I also don't think she can win - she will be publicly trashed no matter what she does.

I completely disagree - what did Elizabeth Taylor learn from her very public affair with Debbie Reynolds' husband? That if you are beautiful/rich enough you get a pass?

I could name others, but why bother, Hollywood is a place of mystical morals.

Whether they "can complain" or not, was not really my point. What I'm saying is that it is tacky all around: the celebrities who make their dirty laundry an attraction, the "journalists" who plaster it all over the media, and the public that buys into it and discusses it.

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me *why* the public takes such an interest in the private life of celebrities and *why* it sells. Like I said, I don't *get* it.

Then again, I don't get most sports either, so it might just be me.

I think it's a viscuous circle with all three parties benefiting. The celebs get PR, the journalists get paid and the consuming public gets a break from reality.Once the public will lose interest, the industry will dry out. However, human nature being what it is the chances of that happening are slim to none. Why are we so interested in celebs? Because they're living our fantasy, at least to us outsiders. They get paid a lot of money to jet-set around the world, wear beautiful clothes and go to parties. Their line of work seems infinitely more glamorous than ours, and they look good doing it.

Now, there are people who are genuinely talented, or have a very interesting life or line of work - so we would like to know more about them. On the other hand, you have people like the Kardashians who are famous for being famous... I don't get humans, either.

My problem is that she didn't actually apologize, or focus at all on hurting anyone else, just went on about herself. I love him, I love him, I love him, the person I love the most, etc, etc. How about I'm so sorry for the hurt I caused. How about I'm sorry for the trouble I've caused. How about thinking about someone other then yourself - because to me all those I love hims, weren't about hurting him, but about how she hurt herself, how she feels bad for herself that her boyfriend kicked her out, how she messed up her life.

Disclaimer: I work in the Entertainment Industry. I am on the IT (Information Technology) side, but I do keep up to date with productions and castings and other trends because it's part of my job.

1. I actually don't think the affair was something appropriate to be reported on. "Robsten" have been fairly low key about their relationship. For the longest time, they denied that they were even a couple.

2. Once a celebrity has been caught been doing something untoward, standard PR practice is to have them make the rounds on the media circuit and apologize. Think: Hugh Grant doing interviews when he was caught with the prostitute. His round of mea culpas is the rule, not the exception and is considered a standard on what to do if you're famous and caught being bad.

The only exception I can think of for #2 is when it's a rather heinous unsubstantiated rumor (Example: Denise Richards meeting Charlie Sheen because she was one of Heidi's girls) that has not been reported by mainstream media. In that case, the celebrity should not engage.

3. As for this being part of a planned media blitz, I highly doubt it. Twihards will support the last installment of the Twilight movie franchise regardless. The only thing this would effect would be the number of death threats Kristen Stewart receives from crazed fans for daring to date Rob. Snow White and the Huntsman is practically gone from the theaters, and any decisions on Snow White and the Huntsman II will be made on international ticket sales, domestic movie sales, and DVD sales.

If I were to judge the "rudeness" I not say it's from Kristen Stewart but from the magazine that reported the issue in the first place.

I'd disagree on one point - I think it is rude to publicly engage in infidelity, knowing that your partner will be hurt and humiliated when (and it's when, not if, in such cases) they find out.

I agree that the magazine was rude, in the terms of the regular world, for reporting on a private situation. However, this type of publication is part of the machinery that drives the entertainment industry these days, and generates those multi-million dollar profits. Gossip fills the coffers.

Perhaps it would have been best for all of us, back in the early days of the film industry, if they'd followed the tenets of the early producers who refused to name their stars - Mary Pickford was "The Biograph Girl", to her early fans, not a "name". But actors (and directors) have benefited financially from becoming celebrities. I'm not sure Stewart would give up her considerable earnings to be just an ordinary 22 year old girl in a love triangle. It's a case of live by the (fame) sword, die by the sword.

I'd disagree on one point - I think it is rude to publicly engage in infidelity, knowing that your partner will be hurt and humiliated when (and it's when, not if, in such cases) they find out.

I agree with you on the act of infidelity itself being inappropriate, but rude doesn't really seem like a good word to describe breaking a committed, monogamous relationship. It's not expansive enough, if that makes sense.

Point of clarification: Florence Lawrence was the first actress associated with the moniker "The Biograph Graph Girl."

Florence was the one who pushed to be known by her name so she could demand a higher wage. I agree that this can be considered the start of the celebrity culture and people being obsessed with stars. However, it should be noted that people were truly interested in Florence long before she became known by her name; fans would write the studio and ask who The Biograph Graph Girl was.

Having said that, all actors are not celebrities. Many stars - see Jodie Foster - manage to score plum roles and still remain under the radar.

There are actors that do invite the public into their private life. For those that don't, I think the media should respect their privacy.

The culture of celebrity has always been with us. People would head to the ampitheatre in Ancient Rome when Mnester was starring in something, people crowded the King's Theatre in Haymarket in the 18th century to hear Farinelli, and Franz Liszt had groupies.

The only thing those guys didn't have is electronic media to spread the word of their successes -- and their pecadillos -- in a New York minute.

I'd disagree on one point - I think it is rude to publicly engage in infidelity, knowing that your partner will be hurt and humiliated when (and it's when, not if, in such cases) they find out.

I agree with you on the act of infidelity itself being inappropriate, but rude doesn't really seem like a good word to describe breaking a committed, monogamous relationship. It's not expansive enough, if that makes sense.

Well, there is a good point that adultery goes beyond rude, into moral issues. However, I think that adultery can at least be carried out discretely. Doing it in such a way that "everyone knows your business" - if deliberate, it's cruel, if done simply out of carelessness, I'd call it, among other things, rude to one's partner.

And may I say that one reason I love e-Hell is that I can be corrected about Mary Pickford vs. Florence Lawrence?

I'd disagree on one point - I think it is rude to publicly engage in infidelity, knowing that your partner will be hurt and humiliated when (and it's when, not if, in such cases) they find out.

I agree with you on the act of infidelity itself being inappropriate, but rude doesn't really seem like a good word to describe breaking a committed, monogamous relationship. It's not expansive enough, if that makes sense.

Well, there is a good point that adultery goes beyond rude, into moral issues. However, I think that adultery can at least be carried out discretely. Doing it in such a way that "everyone knows your business" - if deliberate, it's cruel, if done simply out of carelessness, I'd call it, among other things, rude to one's partner.

I completely agree. Many issues have a moral imperative, but they also have the side that involves people interacting with other people, that is where rudeness can come in to it.

However, I think that adultery can at least be carried out discretely. Doing it in such a way that "everyone knows your business" - if deliberate, it's cruel, if done simply out of carelessness, I'd call it, among other things, rude to one's partner.

I completely agree. I think if someone is going to cheat, the very least they can do is be discrete. Eddie Cibrian and Leann Rimes were so public about their affair.

I feel like once something like this happens, everyone tears apart the 'apology' and says it doesn't sound sincere, they should've used this word instead of that word, and there's pretty much no magic phrase that will ever make people go 'oh they are really sorry'! A lot of people just want to get righteous about these things no matter what, and Stewart particularly attracts a ton of hate even before this.

The days are bygone where celebs could have their indiscretions and not have them splashed all over the mass media (at least not at the speeds of today even if some of them were published). These days with the internet and social media, things can get spread quickly. Can you imagine how people would have reacted if Liz Taylor and Richard Burton's news of their affair was spread via twitter?

Those who cheat on a significant other, can say "sorry" all they want in the media. Most of them may not even think ahead of time of the implications a day or night of passion (or more) can cause issues in their personal and/or professional lives.

The days are bygone where celebs could have their indiscretions and not have them splashed all over the mass media (at least not at the speeds of today even if some of them were published). These days with the internet and social media, things can get spread quickly. Can you imagine how people would have reacted if Liz Taylor and Richard Burton's news of their affair was spread via twitter?

Those who cheat on a significant other, can say "sorry" all they want in the media. Most of them may not even think ahead of time of the implications a day or night of passion (or more) can cause issues in their personal and/or professional lives.

Yep and fans vary in how willing they are to help a celeb out when the story breaks, regardless of the discretion. Twihards probably haven't dealt with any real drama or they'd know not to make things worse.